Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9521 <draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve-13> for your review

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Megan,
thank you for the proposed changes, they are very helpful. All three
options are helpful. Perhaps I like the first option a little more but I
can live with any other too.

Best regards,
Greg

On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 9:34 AM Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Xiao Min and Greg,
>
> Apologies if we added to the confusion!  This has been updated as
> discussed between the two of you.
> However, we feel one of the following further tweaks might make this text
> easier on the reader:
>
> Current:
> If the BFD packet is received with the value of the Your Discriminator
> field 0,..
>
> Perhaps:
> …with the value of the Your Discriminator field set to 0,…
> or
> …with a Your Discriminator field value of 0,…
> or
> If the Your Discriminator field of the BFD packet received has a value of
> 0,...
>
> Please let us know if one of the above is agreeable.
>
> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.txt
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.pdf
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.xml
>
> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521-diff.html (comprehensive
> diff)
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521-auth48diff.html (AUTH48
> changes only)
>
> Please contact us with any further updates/questions/comments you may
> have.
>
> We will await approvals from each of the parties listed on the AUTH48
> status page prior to moving forward to publication.
>
> The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here:
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9521
>
> Thank you.
>
> RFC Editor/mf
>
> > On Dec 18, 2023, at 6:09 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> > Hi Megan,
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you for the revision.
> >
> > Considering the one rejected change, I propose one more editorial change
> as below.
> >
> > Section #5.1
> > OLD:
> > a Your Discriminator equals to 0
> > NEW:
> > a Your Discriminator equal to 0
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Xiao Min
> >
> > Original
> > From: MeganFerguson <[e-mail]>
> > To: 肖敏10093570;Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>;
> > Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]
> >;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> > Date: 2023年12月19日 05:38
> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9521 <draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve-13> for
> your review
> > Xiao and Greg,
> >
> > Thank you for your replies. We have updated the document as requested
> with the exception of the following:
> >
> > > Section #4.1
> > > OLD:
> > > a Your Discriminator equal to 0
> > > NEW:
> > > a Your Discriminator equals to 0
> > >
> > >
> > Please review this request as the suggested text introduces a
> subject/verb agreement error.
> >
> > We have posted the updated files below.  Please review carefully as we
> do not make updates once the document is published as an RFC.
> >
> > The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.txt
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.pdf
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.html
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.xml
> >
> > The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521-diff.html (comprehensive
> diff)
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521-auth48diff.html (AUTH48
> changes only)
> >
> > Please contact us with any further updates/questions/comments you may
> have.
> >
> > We will await approvals from each of the parties listed on the AUTH48
> status page prior to moving forward to publication.
> >
> > The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here:
> >
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9521
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > RFC Editor/mf
> >
> > > On Dec 18, 2023, at 1:29 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear RFC Editor,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for your efforts.
> > > Please see inline my answers to your questions and several proposed
> editorial changes.
> > >
> > > Original
> > > From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> > > To: 肖敏10093570;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>;
> > > Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]
> >;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> > > Date: 2023年12月16日 01:10
> > > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9521 <draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve-13>
> for your review
> > > Authors,
> > >
> > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as
> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
> > >
> > > 1) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the title of the document has been
> > >      updated as follows:
> > >
> > > Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC
> > > Style Guide"). Please review.
> > >
> > > Original:
> > > BFD for Geneve
> > >
> > > Current:
> > > Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Generic Network
> > > Virtualization Encapsulation (Geneve)
> > > -->
> > > [XM]>>> Agreed.
> > >
> > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
> > >      the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
> > > [XM]>>> NVE, VAP, VNI.
> > >
> > > 3) <!--[rfced] For clarity, may we rephrase the run-on sentence below?
> > >
> > > Original:
> > > This document supports establishing multiple BFD sessions between the
> > > same pair of NVEs, each BFD session over a pair of VAPs residing in
> > > the same pair of NVEs, there SHOULD be a mechanism to control the
> > > maximum number of such sessions that can be active at the same time.
> > >
> > > Perhaps:
> > > This document supports establishing multiple BFD sessions between the
> > > same pair of NVEs.  For each BFD session over a pair of VAPs residing
> > > in the same pair of NVEs, there SHOULD be a mechanism to control the
> > > maximum number of such sessions that can be active at the same time.
> > > -->
> > > [XM]>>> Agreed.
> > >
> > > 4) <!-- [rfced] We see a number of uses of the "/" character separating
> > >      terms in this document.  Please review and let us know if we
> > >      should adjust any of these instances to "and/or", "and", or "or"
> > >      for clarity and ease of the reader.
> > > -->
> > > [XM]>>> I don't see a need to adjust any of them. I believe it's
> common to say Ethernet/IP/UDP, Ethernet/IP, IP/UDP, etc.
> > >
> > > 5) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
> > >      online Style Guide
> > >      <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
>
> > >      and let us know if any changes are needed.
> > >
> > > Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this
> > > should still be reviewed as a best practice.
> > > -->
> > > [XM]>>> I don't see a need for any changes. Thank you for the reminder.
> > >
> > >
> > > [XM]>>> Besides the above answers to your questions, I propose a few
> editorial changes as below.
> > >
> > > Section #1
> > > OLD:
> > > For simplicity, NVE is used
> > > NEW:
> > > For simplicity, a NVE is used
> > >
> > > Section #4
> > > OLD:
> > > TTL or Hop Limit:  These MUST be set to 255
> > > NEW:
> > > TTL or Hop Limit:  The TTL for IPv4 or Hop Limit for IPv6 MUST be set
> to 255
> > >
> > > Section #4
> > > OLD:
> > > Geneve specification [RFC8926] depending on
> > > NEW:
> > > Geneve specification ([RFC8926]) depending on
> > >
> > > Section #4.1
> > > OLD:
> > > N-to-1 mapping between a VAP and a VNI
> > > NEW:
> > > N-to-1 mapping between VAPs and VNIs
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Section #5
> > > OLD:
> > > TTL or Hop Limit:  These MUST be set to 255
> > > NEW:
> > > TTL or Hop Limit:  The TTL for IPv4 or Hop Limit for IPv6 MUST be set
> to 255
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > >
> > > Xiao Min
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > RFC Editor/kf/mf
> > >
> > > *****IMPORTANT*****
> > >
> > > Updated 2023/12/15
> > >
> > > RFC Author(s):
> > > --------------
> > >
> > > Instructions for Completing AUTH48
> > >
> > > Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and
> > > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
> > > If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
> > > available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
> > >
> > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
> > > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
> > > your approval.
> > >
> > > Planning your review
> > > ---------------------
> > >
> > > Please review the following aspects of your document:
> > >
> > > *  RFC Editor questions
> > >
> > >    Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
> > >    that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
> > >    follows:
> > >
> > >    <!-- [rfced] ... -->
> > >
> > >    These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
> > >
> > > *  Changes submitted by coauthors
> > >
> > >    Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
> > >    coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you
> > >    agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
> > >
> > > *  Content
> > >
> > >    Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
> > >    change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention
> to:
> > >    - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
> > >    - contact information
> > >    - references
> > >
> > > *  Copyright notices and legends
> > >
> > >    Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
> > >    RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
> > >    (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).
> > >
> > > *  Semantic markup
> > >
> > >    Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements
> of
> > >    content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that
> <sourcecode>
> > >    and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at
> > >    <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
> > >
> > > *  Formatted output
> > >
> > >    Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
> > >    formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
>
> > >    reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting
> > >    limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
> > >
> > >
> > > Submitting changes
> > > ------------------
> > >
> > > To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as
> all
> > > the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The
> parties
> > > include:
> > >
> > >    *  your coauthors
> > >
> > >    *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)
> > >
> > >    *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
> > >       IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
> > >       responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
> > >
> > >    *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing
> list
> > >       to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active
> discussion
> > >       list:
> > >
> > >      *  More info:
> > >
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
> > >
> > >      *  The archive itself:
> > >         https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
> > >
> > >      *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt
> out
> > >         of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive
> matter).
> > >         If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that
> you
> > >         have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
> > >         [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list
> and
> > >         its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
> > >
> > > You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
> > >
> > > An update to the provided XML file
> > >  — OR —
> > > An explicit list of changes in this format
> > >
> > > Section # (or indicate Global)
> > >
> > > OLD:
> > > old text
> > >
> > > NEW:
> > > new text
> > >
> > > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an
> explicit
> > > list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
> > >
> > > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that
> seem
> > > beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of
> text,
> > > and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found
> in
> > > the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream
> manager.
> > >
> > >
> > > Approving for publication
> > > --------------------------
> > >
> > > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
> > > that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
> > > as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
> > >
> > >
> > > Files
> > > -----
> > >
> > > The files are available here:
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.xml
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.html
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.pdf
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.txt
> > >
> > > Diff file of the text:
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521-diff.html
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521-rfcdiff.html (side by
> side)
> > >
> > > Diff of the XML:
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521-xmldiff1.html
> > >
> > > The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own
> > > diff files of the XML.
> > >
> > > Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.original.v2v3.xml
> > >
> > > XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
>
> > > only:
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.form.xml
> > >
> > >
> > > Tracking progress
> > > -----------------
> > >
> > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9521
> > >
> > > Please let us know if you have any questions.
> > >
> > > Thank you for your cooperation,
> > >
> > > RFC Editor
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------
> > > RFC9521 (draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve-13)
> > >
> > > Title            : BFD for Geneve
> > > Author(s)        : X. Min, G. Mirsky, S. Pallagatti, J. Tantsura, S.
> Aldrin
> > > WG Chair(s)      : Matthew Bocci, Sam Aldrin
> > > Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>